S.Curcic-VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE ASPECTS OF BUILDING

UDC: 725.182(497.11)DOI: 10.2298/ZRVI1350835C

SLOBODAN URI(Princeton University)

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE ASPECTS OF BUILDINGTHE FORTIFIED PALACE OF SMEDEREVO

AND ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The remains of the fifteenth-century fortifi cation of Smederevo, the last capital of the Serbian Medieval state, are among the most impressive remnants of Late Medieval architecture in the Balkans. Despite the attention given to the complex in scholarship, many of its visible and invisible aspects still remain unresolved and deserve further investigation.

Keywords: fortifi ed palace, Smederevo, Constantinople, tower, military strategist, architect, Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos

The remains of the town of Smederevo stand out as one of the most impor-tant surviving architectural creations of Late Medieval Serbia. Its fortifi ed enclosure walls are singled out in scholarly literature as the largest late medieval fortress in the Balkans. As such, Smederevo has been published on multiple occasions.1 The schol-arly coverage of architecture of this important monument has produced signifi cant results, but our understanding of its various physical aspects and its origins can hardly be considered complete. Further studies are likewise in order in relationship to its builders and inhabitants, its urban structure, and even its administrative and mili-tary role, about which we know most.2 This small contribution regarding Smederevo architecture aims at highlighting some of its overlooked or misunderstood aspects. These fragments constitute the last, yet highly signifi cant chapter of late medieval history not only of Serbia, but in the Balkans as a whole. As such, they are deemed

1 M. Spremi, Despot Djuradj Brankovi i njegovo doba, Beograd 1994, with comprehensive bib-liography (pp. 1345, f.n. 21)

2 Ibid., 12248 (Zidanje prestonice ).

L, 2013Recueil des travaux de lInstitut dtudes byzantines L, 2013

L (2013) 835851836

an apt way to recognize our honoree, whose contribution as a distinguished historian includes highly important insights into the twilight of medieval Balkans.3

The town of Smederevo was constructed as the last capital of Medieval Serbia, following the death of Despot Stefan Lazarevi in 1427 and the consequent passing of his capital, Belgrade, in accordance with a previous agreement, into the hands of the Kingdom of Hungary. Despot Stefans nephew and successor, Djuradj Brankovi, thus of necessity undertook the building of a new capital on a fl at piece of land east of Belgrade, naturally defi ned by two rivers the Danube and its small tributary, Jezava.4 The fi rst construction phase, between 1428 and 1430, saw the completion of the so-called Mali Grad, ura Brankovis heavily fortifi ed palace, at the confl uence of the two rivers.5 The second phase that followed between ca.1430 and 1439, resulted in the construction of the city fortifi cation walls enclosing a signifi cantly larger triangu-lar space, fl anking the two rivers and a stretch of fl at land between them. In contrast to the surviving fortifi cations, nothing of the newly inhabited town of Smederevo, meas-uring ca.10ha of space within its fortifi ed enclosure, has been preserved. The main, land fortifi cation wall, facing south, with a length of 502m, included eleven massive towers. The 400m-long eastern wall, along the Jezava River, had four massive towers, while the 550m-long wall along the Danube had six, all but one added to the fortifi ca-tion wall as an afterthought. The fortifi cation system involved also secondary, lower exterior walls, fronting the southern and the eastern wall stretches, while a comparable north-western stretch, along the Danube wall was added later. The fortifi cation system involved also a water-fi lled moat fronting the lower exterior wall on the south side, whereas river Jezava served a comparable function along the east wall.6 Despite the citys decline in later times, and especially owing to most serious damage infl icted on its fortifi cation system during the two World Wars, the military aspects of the fortifi ed town of Smederevo have retained their substantially visible presence. By contrast, virtually nothing of the urban architectural context of the fortifi ed town has survived. Thus, a sense of the town of Smederevo, as it must have appeared during the second half of the fi fteenth century is now totally lost. Save for some of the foundations of

3 Lj. Maksimovi, Grad u Vizantiji. Ogledi o drutvu poznovizantijskog doba, Beograd 2003; Idem, Sueljavanje i proimanje dvaju svetova, ZRVI 43 (2006) 1123.

4 M. Popovi, Smederevski grad etape gradjenja i znaenje, ed. M. Spremi, Pad Srpske despo-tovine, 1459. godine, Beograd 2011, 373407; Idem, Zamak u srpskim zemljama poznog srednjeg veka, ZRVI 43 (2006) 189207.

5 Popovic, Smededervski grad, 37580, also, Idem, Zamak u srpskim zemljama, 189207. The author promotes the use of the term zamak (in English: castle), possibly following the argumenta-tion developed by D. Ovcharov, Blgarskijat srednovekoven grad i vprost za feodalnija zamk, eds. D. Ovcharov and I. Dzhambov, Srednovekovnijat zamk v Blgarskite zemi XIIXIV vek, Sopot 1987, 69. In contrast to Ovcharov, whose attention was focused on medieval Bulgaria, the issue has been raised by M. Popovi in a wider Balkan context; cf. S. uri, Architecture in the Age of Insecurity. An Introduction to Secular Architecture in the Balkans, 13001500, eds. S. uri and E. Hadjitryphonos, Secular Medieval Architecture 13001500, and Its Preservation, Thessaloniki 1997, 3741, where the term feudal castle is questioned as having more western medieval connotations, in contrast to the forti-fi ed palace that appears to be more precise in the Byzantine and Balkan context. The topic is developed more fully in S. uri, Late Medieval Fortifi ed Palaces in the Balkans: Security and Survival, 6 (2000) 1141.

6 N. Jocovi and J. Nekovi, Fortifi cations of Smederevo, Yugoslavia, eds. S. uri and E. Hadjitryphonos, Secular Medieval Architecture, 132135.

SLOBODAN URI: Visible and invisible aspects of building the fortifi ed palace 837

a few original buildings that have been archaeologically retrieved, the notion of the urban layout and its architecture can be gleaned only from information preserved in a few, generally speaking, quite inadequate written sources.

It is the substantially preserved condition of the fortifi cation system that pro-vides the only tangible aspect of medieval Smederevo. Its physical location, facing the two bodies of water, and the overall form of the fortifi ed town, display similari-ties with the city of Constantinople and its fortifi cation system, despite their chrono-logical and geographic distance, as well their vastly differing sizes. The city walls of Constantinople, as built under Emperor Theodosius II in the fi fth century, encom-passed an area 140 times the size of the enclosed town of Smederevo, measuring only ca. 10ha. Though built a thousand years apart, the two systems display similarities in overall physical layout, general design, as well as in dimensions and proportional relations of some of their individual features. Similarities between the two schemes suggest that the solution employed at Smederevo may hardly have been the result of an accident. Resemblances were noted in scholarship early, but were perpetuated without further elaboration of the initially made observations.7 Recently, M. Popovi has called to question the validity of the comparison between the fortifi ed walled

7 P. J. Popovi (ed.), Spomenica petstogodinjice smedervskoga grada Despota Djuradja Brankova, Beograd 1930, 4751.

Smederevo, Fortifi ed town, plan (drawing: M. Popovi)

L (2013) 835851838

enclosures of the town of Smederevo with that of Constantinople, arguing that the relationship of the two has not been subjected to a rigorous method of investigation and that the initial observations of similarity appears to have been too readily taken for granted.8 Furthermore, M. Popovi argues that it was the local topography, rather than the design characteristics of Constantinoples fortifi cation system that determined the layout of Smederevo fortifi cation walls9

Remarks available in a few historical sources led to the initial scholarly conclu-sions regarding the perceived links between Constantinople and Smederevo, and as such, even if strictly on a symbolic or associational level, must not be ignored.10 Other, highly relevant aspects of this mutual relationship do exist. Among them, an essentially untapped visual source must be added as a signifi cant contribution to our understand-ing of the central question. The overlooked, invaluable piece of evidence, is a drawing of Constantinople contained in an illustrated Latin manuscript at the Bibliothque Nationale de France, Paris.11 The main part of the manuscript in question contains a text along with illustrations by one Paolo Santini, an Italian military engineer and architect, employed in Hungary around the middle of the fi fteenth century. Clearly produced with military objectives in mind, the volume is dated on the basis of a map of the Balkan Peninsula contained in the same volume.12 The plan of Constantinople follows on the next double-page spread in the same volume. Although the map of the Balkan Peninsula has been known in scholarship, the plan of Constantinople remains essentially unknown. The drawing depicts only the circuit of Constantioples fortifi -cation walls with towers and other features characteristic of the fortifi cation system, while the urban interior of the town is not shown at all, thus revealing the artists inter-est in the strictly military aspects of what was depicted. Probably made by the same individual who produced the map of the Balkan Peninsula, the drawing points to the identical military objectives for which the text and both illustrations were evidently

8 Thus, one still encounters in scholarly literature a stereotypical observation that Smederevo was built after the prototype of Constantinople, and that the entire concept of its fortifi cations arrived there [in Smederevo] with the Greek builders, a conclusion that, taking into account new knowledge acquired during the second half of the twentieth century, ought to require a more rigorous approach; cf.. Popovi, Smederevski grad, 373374, and f. n. 3,

9 Ibid., 378.10 S. irkovi, Smederevo prestonica Srpske despotovine, ed. V. ubrilovi, Osloboenje gra-

dova u Srbiji od Turka 18621867. god., Beograd 1970, 66; . Trifunovi, Nadgrobna re Despotu uru Brankoviu od Smederevskog besednika, Knjievna istorija 46 (1979) 303, 306. Most recent-ly: D. Crnevi, O sakralnoj topografi ji poslednje srpske srednjovekovne prestonice, utvrenog grada Smedereva, ed. S. Mii, Moravska Srbija. Istorija kultura umetnost, Kruevac 2007, 253255, and f. n. 13, with comprehensive bibliography of relevant scholarly literarature.

11 Tractatus Pauli Santini Ducenis de re militari et machinis bellicis, Codex Latinus Parisinus 7239, Bibliothque Nationale de France, Paris, fol. 111v and 112r.

12 Ibid., fol. 113v and 114r.; for the illustration cf. The map has been published on a number of oc-casions: cf. F. Banfi , Two Italian maps of the Balkan Peninsula, Imago mundi XI (1954) 1733; also: M. Nikoli, Karta Balkanskog poluostrva iz prve polovine XV veka, Istorijski asopis XXIXXXX (1983) 6375, who dates the map to the fi fth decade of the fi fteenth century. The main dating indicators are two city vignettes appearing on the map that of the fortifi ed palace of Smederevo, completed between 1428 and 1430, as the terminus post quem, and the vignette of Constantinople with a Christian standard atop one of its towers, providing the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 as the terminus ante quem. The most recent account of Smederevo on 15th-century maps is G. Tomovi, Smederevo na kartama XV veka, ed. M. Spremi, Pad Srpske despotovine, 1459. godine, Beograd 2011, 351363, esp. pp. 35459.


produced. It should be born in mind that the map of the Balkan Peninsula appearing in the same volume, does depict Smederevo (Smedrico) as a small fortifi cation on the Danube between Belgrade (Belgrado) and Golubac (Cholonbazo).13 Smederevo, the smallest of the three, was clearly depicted after the completion of the construction the fortifi ed palace of ura Brankovi (so-called Mali Grad) in 1430. The illustrated group of three fortifi ed complexes on the Danube, thus refl ects the last period of in-tensive military construction in the Balkans, shortly before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and of Serbia in 1459 to the Ottomans.

The drawing of the fortifi cations walls of Constantinople by Paolo Santini, brings into question the possibility of this, or a comparable drawing having been brought from Constantinople to Smederevo at the time when the beginning of the construction of its fortifi ed enclosure may have been contemplated. An individual who may have been involved in bringing such a drawing with him could have been the eventual master builder of the fortifi ed palace, and probably the key fi gure in the even-tual construction of the main fortifi cation system of Smederevo, Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos (b. ca. 1390), a brother of Eirene Kantakouzene, and the brother-in-law of Serbias ruler, ura Brankovi.14 Georgios and Irene were two of the six children of one Theodoros Palaiologos Kantakouzenos, whose early career, though murky, was linked to Thessalonike, where he built a sumptuous private residence, men-tioned in the writings of Ioannis Chortasmenos, Georgios teacher and tutor. Georgios himself became renown as a military technician and architect, whose role in the building of Smederevo was mentioned in the sources. Most important in this regard are com-ments of one Th. Spandugnino, who refers to Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos as a man gifted with many values, enjoying great respect among the Greeks, both be-cause of his origins, as well as on account of his virtues.15 Furthermore, Spandugnino claims that he (Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos) laid the foundations, and built from the ground, the highly fortifi ed town of Smederevo.16 The time of his arrival in Smederevo, however, is not mentioned, and remains a subject of debate. In contrast to the opinion of B. Ferjani that Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos must have ar-rived in Smederevo only after 1437, we hope to demonstrate that he must have been in Smederevo long before then, and that after 1437 he came there for the second time.17

13 S. uri, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Sleyman the Magnifi cent, New Haven and London 2010, 511, fi g. 573.

14 B. Ferjani, Vizantinci u Srbiji prve polovine XV veka, Zbornik radova Vizantolokog insti-tuta 26 (1987) 173215, esp. pp. 198201, provides the most detailed, critically evaluated information regarding Georgios Kantakouzenos, derived from original sources, as well as from the comprehensive interpretation of evidence produced by various modern scholars. Ferjani, ibid., 178180, among other things, accepts H. Hungers identifi cation of Theodore Kantakouzenos as the father of Irene Kantakouzene and her brother Georgios.

15 dotato di ogni virt et di grande estimation apresso li Greci si per la geneologia del sangue come per la virt sua. Th. Spandugnino,.. Theodoro Spandugnino, patrio Constantinopolitano, de la origine degli imperatori Ottomani, ordini de la corte, forma del guerreggiare loro, religion, rito e t cos-tume de la natione, C. Sathas, Documents indits relatifs lhistoire de la Grce au Moyen-ge, IX, Paris 1890, 135261, esp. p. 151. Also Spremi, Despot Djuradj Brankovi i njegovo doba, 124.

16 et fund et edifi c dalli fundamenti la citt fortissimo di Sfenderono, Ibid., Spandugnino, 151; also Spremi, Despot Djuradj Brankovi i njegovo doba, 124.

17 Ferjani, Vizantinci u Srbiji, 200201, accepting the opinions of H. Hunger and D. Nicol.

L (2013) 835851840

His father, Theodore Palaiologos Kantakouzenos, on the other hand, may have left Thessaloniki and established his residence in Constantinople several years before his death in 141011.18 Theodores presence in Constantinople is associated with a private residence, known as Mermerkule, possibly con-structed under the supervision of his son, Georgios.19 Mermerkule, probably one of, if not the very last Byzantine construction of signifi cance in Constantinople, was built between ca. 1402 and 1410. Situated at the south-western end of the city Land Walls, at their junction with the Sea of Marmara, the fortifi ed palace belonged to a series of such private residences constructed along the city walls, starting in the late twelfth century at the citys northeast-ern corner. The phenomenon of forti-fi ed residences appears to have become widespread, not only on the territories of the Byzantine Empire, but also in the neighboring states of Bulgaria and Serbia during the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.20 Mermerkule was conceived as a small heavily walled-in enclosure, measuring ca. 33 18 m in plan. Its western side, once sitting in the waters of the Sea of Marmara, is now land bound. The eastern side of its

enclosure was dismantled during the construction of a six-lane highway in the 1960s providing the main traffi c access to the city from the south. Only traces of the mas-sive southern walls have survived facilitating the sense of a fortifi ed enclosure, whose western and southern parts are preserved essentially to their full height. The main part of the complex is a four-story massive tower, measuring ca. 10 10.8 m in plan and ca. 25 m high. Originally strategically located on the seafront, the tower rose from a massive, multi-stepped platform made from huge re-used marble blocks. (Fig. 1) The

18 Ibid., 179, f. n. 32.19 U. Peschlow, Die Befestigte Residenz von Mermerkule. Beobachtungen an einem sptbyzan-

tinischen Bau im Verteidigungssytem von Konstantinopel, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001) 385403, esp. p. 401.

20 uri, Late Medieval Fortifi ed Palaces, esp. pp. 1119. The article provides prolegomena to the subject of fortifi ed palaces during the Late Middle Ages in the Balkans, demonstrating close links between Byzantine examples and those in the related neighboring countries, between ca. 1250 and ca. 1450.

Constantinople, Mermerkule, Fortifi ed Palace, plan (drawing: M. Dimani)


tower, as well as the walls enclosing the palace, had very few small exterior windows. Most of the natural light, therefore, came into its interior spaces through large open-ings facing the central interior court. Especially telling are the two-storied interior arcades consisting of large arches supported on massive piers. The system of interior arcading is characterized by high-quality construction, especially distinguished by banded arches revealing a method of arch construction that became quite common in Constantinople from the last decades of the thirteenth century on. (Fig. 2) Practically nothing of the interior decoration of the palace itself survives, making the understand-ing of the buildings interior spaces and their intended functions almost impossible. This, of course, is a general case with most secular Byzantine buildings of which very few survive anywhere, including in Constantinople itself. Of all parts of the surviving interior spaces in the Mermerkule palace, the interiors of the main tower are of par-ticular interest, especially its two central, superimposed rooms on the ground, and on the second fl oor. The ground-fl oor room was vaulted by a pendentive brick dome, 4m in diameter, while its side walls forming a square, 4 4 m in plan, expanded laterally into deep barrel-vaulted niches. A similar scheme was repeated on the second fl oor, though the condition of its dome and side vaulting is not as well preserved. Only the east and north exterior walls of the top two fl oors survive. The exact function of ei-ther of the two lower rooms is not known, but they must have been spaces of special importance on account of their central position, their size, and the fact that they were both domed. Ceremonial functions, undoubtedly, must have taken place in this part of the palace. Use of domical vaulting, and especially of domes in towers of this size and type were fairly rare in Byzantine architecture, and appear mostly in buildings of special signifi cance in secular contexts.21

The time of the construction of the Mermerkule complex, as well as its location and architectural characteristics, are of considerable importance for our better un-derstanding of the fortifi ed palace (Mali Grad) of ura Brankovi at Smederevo. With its prow position at the southwestern point of the city fortifi cation walls of Constantinople, Mermerkule, its main tower occupying the forefront position, seems to have served as a model for the fortifi ed palace at Smederevo constructed in 14281430, lagging the construction of Mermerkule by 18 years. This brings us to the key question of what may have been the role of Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos in the construction at Smederevo. Considering that as a young man, he may have played an active role in the construction of Mermerkule on behalf of his father Theodore, sometime before the latters death in 141011, the subsequent activities of George Palaiologos Kantakouzenos, whose virtues are praised by Spandugnino, remain strangely opaque. On account of the fact that, according to the opinions of Hunger and Nichol, and also accepted by Ferjani, Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos

21 An outstanding example of the use of domes in fortifi ed palace architecture is the private resi-dence of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (134754) at Pythion. The residence incorporates two towers, the larger one measuring 14.80 14.70 m in plan, while its three surviving stories reach a height of ca. 17 m. The smaller of the two towers, measuring ca. 7.4 7.3 m in plan is ca. 20 m in high, with its four surviving stories. Both towers are characterized by brick saucer-dome vaulting, a characteristic that the Pythion towers share with the mentioned main tower of Marmerkule; M. Korres and C. Bakirtzis, Fortress of Pythion, Greece, Secular Medieval Architecture, 15861; also, more recently: K. Tsouris and A. Brikas, To frourio tou Pythiou kai to ergo tis apokataataseos tou, Kavala 2002.

L (2013) 835851842

could not have arrived in Smederevo before 1437, we would have to conclude that his only known professional activity before this time is that in the service of Constiantine Palaiologos for whom he led a diplomatic mission to Dubrovnik in February 1431. Since no specifi c date when he may have actually entered the service of Constantine Palaiologos is known, the question has to be raised regarding his activities between 1410 and 1430.

Spandugninos reference to Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos as a man who laid the foundations, and built from the ground, the highly fortifi ed town of Smederevo should be linked with his earlier building activity in Constantinople. As a builder of distinction in the court circles of Constantinople, he would have been a logical choice, to be invited to Serbia by his sister Eirene. The occasion could have been the need for the construction of the new residence for his brother-in-law, ura Brankovi, who became a ruler of Serbia, following the death of his uncle, Despot Stefan Lazarevi, in 1427. Because the circumstances at the time required the construc-tion of a new offi cial residence for the Serbian ruler, an architect, equipped with sound knowledge of fortifi ed palace architecture, as Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos at the time was, would have been an ideal choice. Characteristics of the fortifi ed palace, built for ura Brankovi, dated precisely between 1428 and 1430, according to an inscription on one of its towers, in most respects followed the concept of Mermerkule, and therefore, would clarify the role of Georgios Palaiologs Kantakouzenos, as a man who was involved in laying the foundations and building [the palace] from the ground up at Smederevo. His postulated arrival in Smederevo after 1437, accord-ing to Ferjani, Hunger and Nichol, therefore, can only be accepted as his return to Smederevo, after his actual years in the service of Constantine Palaiologos had ended.

Examining more closely characteristics of the fortifi ed palace (Mali Grad) at Smederevo will provide us with further indications that fi rst-hand knowledge of fortifi ed palaces in Constantiople, played a role in Smederevo, and must have been linked by the agency of Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos in these matters. The most obvious aspect of the relationship between the fortifi ed palace at Smederevo and Mermerkule is in the presence of a dominant main tower. Situated at the prow of both land formations, the main tower in Smederevo, as in the case of Mermerkule, is massive and physically dominant within its palatine complex. As such, in both cases the main tower relays symbolically, as well as functionally, the sense of power. The interiors of both main towers are dominated on the ground and second levels by cen-tral, vaulted square rooms. The dimension of these rooms in both structures are identi-cal 4m x 4m in plan. In both structures, a pendentive dome covers the ground-fl oor square room. During the 194950 excavations and exploration of the badly damaged remains of the fortifi ed palace, A. Deroko raised the fundamental question of access to the main tower and its possible functional intent.22 (Fig. 3) Examining the extensively collapsed southern side of the main tower, Deroko ventured a hypothetical reconstruc-tion of its interior. A square room on its fi rst level was ca 9m high, and was covered by a brick-and-stone pendentive dome, only northern half of which had survived. (Fig.

22 A. Deroko, Smederevski grad. Stanovanje u jednom naem srednjevekovnom gradu i jo neki nereeni problemi, Starinar n. s. II (1951) 5998, esp. pp. 812.


4) The room above this one, also ca. 4m square in plan, was also vaulted, in this case by a barrel vault.23 The tower rose above this level to an unknown height, and may have featured one, or possibly two additional stories. In the remaining thickness of the northern exterior wall of the second fl oor room, Deroko noted a cavity measuring ca. 2m x ca. 4m in plan, with a visible part of a niche, facing east. He correctly postulated that this could have been a palatine chapel linked to the ceremonial wing of the palace magna sala audientiae -- whose identity has been ascertained beyond any doubt. A comparable example of a palatine chapel, next to a palace hall was noted by Deroko at Golubac, where a comparable square blind domed chapel, measuring 4 4 m in plan, is situated above a basement story within a tower.24 Derokos hypothetical

23 The similarity of interiors of the main towers of the Mermerkule and Smederevo fortifi ed palaces is notable also because the use of domes and vaulting of tower interiors is relatively common in large Late Byzantine towers related to palaces and signifi cant monastic complexes. In the Serbian context, by contrast, interior vaulting of towers was exceptional.

24 A. Deroko, Srednjevekovni gradovi u Srbiji, Crnoj Gori i Makedoniji, Beograd 1950, 83.

Smederevo, Fortifi ed Palace (axonometric reconstruction drawing: K. McPherson)

L (2013) 835851844

Constantinople, Mermerkule, Fortifi ed Palace (perspective reconstruction drawing: M. Dimani)


suggestion of the palatine chapel having been located within the main tower of the fortifi ed palace in Smederevo, was rejected for various reasons by Nenadovi, and subsequently followed by others.25 The later restoration of the main tower in the forti-fi ed palace in Smederevo ultimately led to the removal of aspects of physical evidence that may have supported Derokos ideas, causing his hypothesis to be suppressed and entirely forgotten.26 Most recently, the presence of a palace chapel, referred to by the term cerkov polatna, in the sources, has been categorically rejected.27

Doubts that Derokos critics may have harbored, however, can be challenged most effectively by referring to a miniature domed chapel, within Tekfur Saray, a late thirteenth-century fortifi ed palace in Constantinople. The relevance of Tekfur

25 S. Nenadovi, Razmiljanja o arhitekturi crkve Blagovetenja Despota Djurdja Brankovia, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja IX-X (1979) 40323, esp. pp. 4056.

26 G. Simi, Donon kule u fortifi kaciji srednjovekovnih gradova, Beograd 2010, 105107, ulti-mately, rejected Derokos ideas, without taking into account details of his reasoning. In discussing the donjon at the Citadel of Smederevo, she offers her reconstruction of the building (fi g. 57) in which the evidence recorded by Deroko was ignored and replaced with a hypothetical reconstruction of a spiral staircase.

27 M. Popovi, Ka problemu srednjovekovnih crkvi Smederevskog grada, Starinar n. s. L, 2000 (2001) 20119, is a detailed survey of older literature pertaining to the problem of church buildings known to have existed in Smederevo, as well as the question of their locations. Basing his conclusions regarding the problem of the palatine chapel on Nenadovi, Razmiljanja, cf. f. n. 24, while completely ignoring Deroko-s ideas, Popovi denies that the chapel ever existed within the palace complex. In our opinion, the problem of the location of the palatine chapel remains unresolved.

Smederevo, Fortifi ed Palace; main tower andl of ceremonial wing (plan an elevation: A. Deroko)

L (2013) 835851846

Saray lies not solely in the physical dimensions and the form of its palatine chapel, but in the fact that Georgios Kantakouzenos would certainly have known the residence in question, with its architectural characteristics, including the small palatine chapel, which thus, as an idea, could have reached Smederevo. The Tekfur Saray chapel of very small dimensions (ca. 2 3 m in plan) is easily identifi ed by its distinctive char-acteristics of a miniature church with a blind dome on pendentives, and a projecting small apse on its east side.28 (Fig. 5) The idea of a small interior chapel brought from Constantinople, therefore, would have been entirely feasible in Smederevo. This, in turn, renders the judgment that the space within the fortifi ed palace enclosure for ac-commodating a palatine chapel would have been too small, entirely unconvincing.29

From the technical and decorative points of view, various other architectural aspects of the fortifi ed palace of ura Brankovi are also noteworthy, as they reveal links with Late Byzantine architecture and, as such, further reinforce our perception of the key role of Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos in its construction. Important here are the large windows of the palace audience hall, whose round arches feature banded-voussoirs in which triple bricks alternate with single stone voussoir blocks. (Fig. 6) Banded-voussoirs, although known in earlier Byzantine architecture, became much more common in Late Byzantine times. Their use was especially frequent in Constantinople after 1261.30 Tekfur Saray is the earliest known instance of their extensive Late Byzantine application in the capital. The trend continued through the fourteenth and into the fi fteenth century. Their use in the arches of the Mermerkule palace is of particular relevance in comparison with the arches of the palace of ura Brankovi with which they share the same system of voussoir alteration, using triple-brick and single-stone voussoirs. (Fig. 2) Use of alternating layers of brick courses with bands made up of rough stone, characterizes also some of the vaulting features, as is especially notable in the blind dome of the interior of the main tower, pointing to another construction technique notable in Late Byzantine Constantinople. (Fig. 4)

The exterior walls of the fortifi ed palace (Mali Grad) at Smederevo were marked by visibly displayed pieces of Roman sculpture, refl ecting another characteris-tic of Late Byzantine architecture that must have reached Serbia from territories where the practice began in Middle Byzantine times and became widespread.31 Especially no-table at Smederevo is that spoils used in construction here, were not chance-fi nds from the terrain used for its construction. Instead, they were specially brought from else-where, most notably from the Roman town of Viminacium (modern Kostolac), ca. 30 km downstream from Smederevo on the Danube.32 Especially notable in the context of selected and displayed ancient works of art was the fi gure of the Roman goddess Vesta (Greek Hestia), protectress of the home. Almost certainly not by chance, the 2m-high, fully preserved statue of the goddess at Smederevo was displayed in a niche next to the

28 S. uri, Houses in the Byzantine World, ed. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Everyday Life in Byzantium, Athens 2002, 22938.

29 Popovi, Smederevski grad etape, 379.30 A. Pasadaios, ,

1973, . , . 623 (11: To). 31 H. Saradi, The Use of Ancient Spolia in Byzantine Monuments: The Archaeological and Literary

Evidence, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3, No. 4 (Spring 1997) 395423.32 Popovi (ed.), Spomenica, 523.


main inner gate of the fortifi ed palace.33 The concept and the installation of the statue was informed by an individual versed in ancient religious beliefs, refl ecting an educa-tional level that would have been accessible to the members of the court in Byzantium, as well as those in Serbia at this time. Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos, the most likely architect of the palace complex, would not only have understood the symbolic implication of the statue, but would have been the most likely designer of the niche for its appropriate display in the vicinity of the palace gate.

Among various decorative faade features on fortifi cations at Smederevo, out-standing is the monumental founders inscription on the faade of one of the four southern towers of the fortifi ed palace of ura Brankovi.34 (Fig. 7) Measuring 10.65 c. 7.5 m, occupying upper half of the total tower height of approximately 22 m, this is probably the largest surviving wall inscription in the fi fteenth-century Balkans. Written in Old Church Slavonic, its two-line long main text reads as follows:

In Christ God Faithful, Despot Gurg, the Lord of Serbia and the Zeta Litoral. By his order this fort was built in the year 6938 [1430]

Executed in brick, the lines of the inscription are 46 cm high. The text is exe-cuted with great precision, revealing outstanding craftsmanship. A huge double cross, ca. 6,3 m high, rises axially in relationship to the inscription that appears as a ground line below the three-stepped base of the cross. Comparable to Byzantine monumental inscriptions on building exteriors of the Late Byzantine period, the Smederevo cross has no preserved comparisons in either size or quality. Despite the fact that the text is in Old Church Slavonic, the concept of the inscription and its execution in brick almost certainly reveal Byzantine origins.

The 1430 completion date of the fortifi ed palace of ure Brankovi coincides with the probable departure of Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos from Smederevo and his joining of Constantine Palaeologos as his aid. His fi rst recorded function in the service of Constantine Palaeologos was a mission journey to Dubrovnik, re-corded in 1431.35 The end of Georgios Kantakouzenos work in the service of Constantine Palaiologos came in the fall of 1437. They may have departed together for Constantinople at the time when Constantine was called to temporarily assume regency on behalf of his older brother Emperor John VIII, during the latters long journey to Italy. At the same time, Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos journeyed on to Trebizond, visiting his sister Helene, wife of Emperor John IV Komnenos. It is known that after that visit he went to Smederevo, to join his sister Eirene. Generally, in contrast to what is presented here, scholarship has accepted his visit after 1437, as his fi rst and only visit in Smederevo. In our opinion, as this article has attempted to demonstrate, this was Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos second, longer visit there. His architectural input during this time was more limited in signifi cance and

33 Preserved in situ until WWI, the statue was removed by the Austrian-Hungarian troops following a major bombardment of Smederevo in 1916. Subsequently removed with other artifacts, this statue was shipped by German troops to an unknown destination; cf. L. Pavlovi, Smederevo i Evropa, 13811918, Smederevo 1988, 1415 and Fig. 4.

34 Deroko, Smederevski grad, 916; G. Tomovi, Morfologija irilikih natpisa na Balkanu, Beograd 1974, 110.

35 Ferjani, Vizantinci u Srbiji, 197.

L (2013) 835851848

output. In all likelihood, it involved interventions on the outer fortifi cation walls of Smederevo, specifi cally the addition of four large towers facing the Danube in 1444. The addition of the four towers occurred after the end of the short Turkish conquest of Smederevo (143944), when such an addition must have been deemed essential. Their construction most certainly was the work of Byzantine builders, probably from the area of Byzantine Macedonia, judging by the building technique employed in the construction of the towers. It was undoubtedly Georgios Palaiologos Kantakouzenos who supervised the last construction and thus, the completion of the Smederevo for-tifi cation enclosure walls, as we know them. In addition, during a surprise Hungarian attack on Smederevo in 1453, he also found himself in charge of its military defense. His outstanding skills, both as an architect and as a military strategist, as noted in historical accounts, warrant further, more detailed study.

The thirty-year long history of Smederevo framed the most dramatic period of medieval history in the Balkans. From the initiation of the construction of the forti-fi ed palace of ura Brankovi in 1428, to its ultimate fall to the Ottomans in 1459 Smederevo became the fi nal stage of Christian resistance to the massive Ottoman incursion into the Balkans. Sharing the image, the knowledge, and ultimately the des-tiny of Constantinople through family ties it became a grand fi nal testimony of this crucial historical epoch.

Smederevo, Fortifi ed Palace, founders inscription, 1430 (drawing: S. Nenadovi)


LIST OF REFERENCES

Primary Sources

Sathas C., Documents indits relatifs lhistoire de la Grce au Moyen-ge, IX, Paris 1890, 135261.Tomovi G., Morfologija irilikih natpisa na Balkanu, Beograd 1974.Trifunovi ., Nadgrobna re Despotu uru Brankoviu od Smederevskog besednika, Knjievna istorija

46 (1979) 295314.

Secondary Works

Banfi F., Two Italian maps of the Balkan Peninsula, Imago mundi XI (1954) 1733irkovi S., Smederevo prestonica Srpske despotovine, ed. V. ubrilovi, Osloboenje gradova u Srbiji

od Turka 1862/1867. god., Beograd 1970, 6169.Cunjak M., Smederevska tvrdjava. Novija istraivanja, Smederevo 1998.Crnevi D., O sakralnoj topografi ji poslednje srpske srednjovekovne prestonice, utvrenog grada

Smedereva, ed. S. Mii, Moravska Srbija. Istorija kultura umetnost, Kruevac 2007, 249263.uri S., Architecture in the Age of Insecurity. An Introduction to Secular Architecture in the Balkans,

13001500, eds. S. uri and E. Hadjitryphonos, Secular Medieval Architecture 13001500, and Its Preservation, Thessaloniki 1997, 1951.

uri S., Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Sleyman the Magnifi cent, New Haven and London 2010.

uri S., Houses in the Byznatine World, ed. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Everyday Life in Byzantium, Athens 2002, 229238.

uri S., Late Medieval Fortifi ed Palaces in the Balkans: Security and Survival, 6 (2000) 1141.

Deroko A., Smederevski grad. Stanovanje u jednom naem srednjevekovnom gradu i jo neki nereeni problemi, Starinar N.s. II (1951) 5998.

Deroko A., Srednjevekovni gradovi u Srbiji, Crnoj Gori i Makedoniji, Beograd 1950.Ferjani B., Vizantinci u Srbiji prve polovine XV veka, Zbornik radova Vizantolokog instituta 26

(1987) 173215.Jocovi N. and J. Nekovi, Fortifi cations of Smederevo, Yugoslavia, eds. S. uri and E. Hadjitryphonos,

Secular Medieval Architecture, 132135.Korres M. and C. Bakirtzis, Fortress of Pythion, Greece, eds. S. uri and E. Hadjitryphonos, Secular

Medieval Architecture, 15861.Nenadovi S., Razmiljanja o arhitekturi crkve Blagovetenja Despota Djurdja Brankovia, Zbornik

Narodnog muzeja IXX (1979) 403423.Nikoli M., Karta Balkanskog poluostrva iz prve polovine XV veka, Istorijski asopis XXIXXXX (1983)

6375.Ovcharov D., Blgarskijat srednovekoven grad i vprost za feodalnija zamk, eds. D. Ovcharov and I.

Dzhambov, Srednovekovnijat zamk v Blgarskite zemi XIIXIV vek, Sopot 1987, 69.Pasadaios A., ,

1973, . [Pasadaios A., Ho keramoplastikos diakosmos tn byzantinn ktirion ts Konstantinoupoles, Athna 1973, Keph. II].

Pavlovi L., Smederevo i Evropa, 13811918, Smederevo 1988.Peschlow U., Die befestigte Residenz von Mermerkule. Beobachtungen an einemsptbyzantinischen

Bau im Verteidigungssystem von Konstantinopel, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001) 385403.

L (2013) 835851850

Popovi P. J. (ed.), Spomenica petstogodinjice smedervskoga grada Despota uraa Brankovia, Beograd 1930.

Popovi M., La residence du despot Djuradj Brankovi dans le Catelet de la forteresse de Smederevo, Balcanoslavica 7 (1979) 101112.

Popovi M., Ka problemu srednjovekovnih crkvi smederevskog grada, Starinar N.s. L, 2000 (2001) 201219.Popovi M., Smederevo fortress, Belgrade 2013.Popovi M., Smederevski grad etape gradjenja i znaenje, ed. M. Spremi, Pad Srpske despotovine,

1459. godine, Beograd 2012, 373407.Popovi M., Zamak u srpskim zemljama poznog srednjeg veka, Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta

43 (2006) 189207.Saradi ., The Use of Ancient Spolia in Byzantine Monuments: The Archaeological and Literary

Evidence, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3, No. 4 (Spring 1997) 395423.Simi G., Palata Golubakog grada, Saoptenja 2023 (19901991) 77101.Simi G., Donon kule u fortifi kaciji srednjovekovnih gradova, Beograd 2010.Spremi M., Despot Djuradj Brankovi i njegovo doba, Beograd 1994.Spremi M. (ed.), Pad Srpske despotovine 1459. godine, Beograd 2012.Tomovi G., Smederevo na kartama XV veka, ed. M. Spremi, Pad Srpske despotovine, 1459. godine,

Beo grad 2011, 351363.Tsouris K. and A. Brikas, To frourio tou Pythiou kai to ergo tis apokataataseos tou, Kavala 2002.

( )

( )

( ) ( ) . , 1428 1430 , , ( ) 1430 1439, - , 143944. .

, - , , , - , .


, , . , , -, , , Tractatus Pauli Santini Ducenis de re militari t machinis bellicis, Codex Latinus Parisinus 7239, Bibliothque Nationale de France, Paris, fol 111v and 112r, , Paolo Santini-, .

- , -, , ( 141011. ), (. ), . , 1414. . , 1427. , , 1428. . , ( ), 1430. .

, , . . , , , , , , . , , 4 m . - , - .

, , - , 1430. 10.65 7.5 m, , , -. , .

- , y , - .

S.Curcic-VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE ASPECTS OF BUILDING

Documents

Transcript of S.Curcic-VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE ASPECTS OF BUILDING